DECISION

 

Ivan Cornejo LLC v. IVAN CORNEJO

Claim Number: FA2603002208524

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Ivan Cornejo LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Mark D. Passler of Blank Rome LLP, Florida, USA. Respondent is IVAN CORNEJO ("Respondent"), represented by Joanna M. Myers of Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC, Nevada, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ivancornejo.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Sebastian M W Hughes as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 3, 2026; Forum received payment on March 3, 2026.

 

On March 4, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ivancornejo.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC; and disclosed registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent in the Complaint. Accordingly, Complainant filed an Amended Complaint on March 10, 2026.  GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On March 10, 2026, Forum served the Amended Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 30, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@ivancornejo.com. Also on March 10, 2026, the Written Notice of the Amended Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 27, 2026.

 

On March 30, 2026, pursuant to the Parties' requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sebastian M W Hughes as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant Ivan Carnejo LLC is the owner of intellectual property rights associated with the acclaimed musician Ivan Carnejo.

 

Ivan Carnejo first rose to prominence in 2020, when he released his first song and began rapidly gaining popularity on TikTok and other social media platforms.

 

Complainant owns the US federally registered trademark registration for IVAN CORNEJO, registered in respect of goods and services in Classes 9, 25 and 41, and filed on August 25, 2023, with a registration date of October 15, 2024 (the "Trademark").

 

Complainant has developed widespread public recognition and appeal in its IVAN CORNEJO brand through continuous and substantial use dating back to 2020; and has thus developed valuable goodwill and an outstanding reputation in the Trademark, which is among its most valuable assets.

 

The Trademark has become distinctive as used on or in connection with a variety of goods and services through Complainant's extensive marketing, advertising, and promotion of such goods and services under the Trademark.

 

Ivan Cornejo has amassed millions of followers across social media platforms, streams in the hundreds of millions on music streaming services and has performed at numerous sold-out concerts and music festivals.

 

It is thus irrefutable that Complainant has established rights in the Trademark pursuant to Policy.

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 8, 2020, which coincides with the time period when Ivan Cornejo the musician released his first song and began achieving viral success on TikTok and other social media platforms.

 

The disputed domain name was not resolved to an active website until April 26, 2024. The disputed domain name has, since that date, been resolved to a website with sporadic posts and content relating to food, drinks and travel.

 

Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant and is not authorised to use the Trademark.

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name without the authorisation, knowledge or consent of Complaint.

 

Respondent's use and registration of the disputed domain name is a blatant attempt to cybersquat and to unjustly capitalise on Complainant's fame and goodwill.

 

The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. With respect to registration, the identical nature of the disputed domain name and the Trademark, combined with the suspicious timing of the registration, is strong evidence in support of the fact that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's emerging fame and prior rights.

 

Respondent's use of the domain name is an attempt to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website. 

 

Because the Trademark is registered with the USPTO, Respondent was on "constructive" notice of Complainant's rights in the Trademark. Respondent's actual and constructive knowledge of the Trademark gives rise to a legal presumption of bad faith registration pursuant to the Policy.

 

B. Respondent

Complainant has failed to establish it owned trademark rights at the time Respondent registered the disputed domain name.

 

Respondent, an individual named Ivan Cornejo, registered the disputed domain name over three years before Complainant filed its application to register the Trademark with the USPTO.

 

Respondent had no knowledge of Complainant at the time he registered the disputed domain name. He first became aware of Complainant in or around 2023, several years after he registered the disputed domain name.

 

As reflected in its registration certificate for the Trademark, Complainant asserts it first offered the goods and services identified therein in August 2021, over a year after Respondent registered the disputed domain name.

 

Moreover, Complainant did not even exist until November 22, 2022, over two years after Respondent registered the disputed domain name

 

Claimant failed to provide any evidence of trademark rights pre-dating Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name.

 

Because Complainant's application for registration and the resulting registration issued by the USPTO post-date Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name, Complainant must prove ownership of common law rights in the IVAN CORNEJO brand. Complainant makes unsupported assertions that its musician by the same name began his rise to fame in 2020, but publicly available documents indicate his first album was not released until 2021 and did not go "viral" until September 2021, over a year after Respondent registered the disputed domain name.

 

Regardless, the burden was on Complainant to prove it owned rights in the Trademark at the time the disputed domain name was registered, and it failed to meet that burden.

 

Respondent, who shares the same name as the musician Ivan Cornejo, is using the disputed domain name in respect of a blog website related to travel, food and beverages; and has not, at any time, attempt to gain monetarily from his registration of the disputed domain name. Respondent has previously rejected an approach from a domain name broker via GoDaddy, offering to purchase the disputed domain name on behalf of an anonymous buyer for amounts in excess of US$20,000.

 

Respondent believes the potential buyer was likely Complainant.

 

Respondent requests a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH") against Complainant.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has not established all the elements entitling it to transfer of the disputed domain names.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)       the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name is identical to the Trademark.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

In light of the findings below under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy as to the lack of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name, it is not necessary to make any findings in respect of this limb.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

It is well-established that, in order to establish the third limb under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, complainants must demonstrate both registration and use in bad faith.

 

Complainant was incorporated on November 20, 2022.

 

In this proceeding, Complainant relies on its rights in the Trademark. Complainant filed its application for registration of the Trademark on August 25, 2023. Complainant's registration for the Trademark relies upon dates of first use/first use in commerce of August 2021 in respect of the specification of goods in Class 9, January 31, 2023 in respect of the specification of goods in Class 25, and January 31, 2023 in respect of the specification of services in Class 41.

 

Complainant does not expressly rely on any common law rights in this proceeding which predate (1) Complainant's date of incorporation; and (2) the above dates of first use/first use in commerce in respect of its registration for the Trademark.

 

Complainant asserts that the individual musician Ivan Cornejo first rose to prominence in 2020, but has not adduced any evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence before this Panel of (1) the individual musician Ivan Cornejo possessing any goodwill or reputation in his name as an indicator of trade source prior to the date of registration of the disputed domain name; and (2) any such goodwill or reputation, if it existed prior to July 8, 2020, having been assigned to Complainant upon (or following) its incorporation.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Complainant is legally represented and accordingly ought to be held to a higher standard.

 

In light of the fact both the Complainant and its registration for the Trademark did not exist at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, Complainant and its legal representatives ought to have known that it would be impossible to demonstrate that, as contended by Complainant in the Amended Complaint, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's then non-existent Trademark.

 

There is no evidence before the Panel to confirm Respondent's suspicions as to whether Complainant was behind the anonymous approach to purchase the disputed domain name in 2024. Accordingly, the Panel is unable to conclude that in all the circumstances there ought be a finding of RDNH on the basis of this proceeding being a "Plan B" proceeding, filed following an unsuccessful attempt by Complainant to obtain the disputed domain name from Respondent.

 

Nonetheless, in all the circumstances, there can be no question that Complainant and its legal representatives ought to have appreciated that it would be unable to establish the third limb under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ivancornejo.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

Moreover, the Panel finds that the Complaint has been brought in bad faith and constitutes an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

 

 

 

 

Sebastian M W Hughes, Panelist

Dated: March 31, 2026